Plaintiffs
Michael and Toni Adams seek relief under Rule 60 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure from the court's
September 14, 2017 Memorandum Decision and Order granting
Wells Fargo Bank's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Complaint. For the reasons stated below, the court DENIES
plaintiffs' motion.

BACKGROUND

On May
3, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a “Complaint Against Wells
Fargo Bank et al. For Fraudulent Pseudo Foreclosure Attempts;
Quieting Title in Adams; Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress; Fraud; Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and
Fair Dealing.” (Dkt. No. 1.)

Two
days later, on May 5, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a “Motion
Ex Parte to Bar Defendants From Selling Plaintiffs' Home
and to Protect Them Against Defendants' Further Efforts
to Take Plaintiffs' Home.” (Dkt. No. 2.)

Defendants
were served with the motion, and after it was fully briefed
the court held oral argument. On May 31, 2017, after
reviewing the written materials and listening to the
arguments of counsel, the court issued an oral ruling,
denying plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief. (Dkt.
No. 12.)

Four
days later, on June 4, 2017, plaintiffs filed
“Plaintiffs' Motion to Alter or Amend the
Court's Denial of their Motion for a Protective Order
Against Wells Fargo Bank's Interference With Their
Occupancy and Possession of Residential Real Property on the
Basis of Plain Error Caused by the Bank's Representing
that the Plaintiff's [sic] Home Had Been Sold When it Had
Not.” (Dkt. No. 13.) On July 5, after briefing was
complete, the court entered an order denying plaintiffs'
motion on the basis that the motion merely re-stated the same
arguments presented in the original motion for protective
order and at oral argument on the same. (Dkt. No. 17.)

In the
interim, defendants filed a “Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Complaint” pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6),
asserting that plaintiffs' complaint should be dismissed
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. (Dkt. No. 10.) Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
motion, to which the defendants replied. (Dkt. Nos. 15 &
18, respectively.)

On
September 14, 2017, the court issued a written Opinion
granting defendants' motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 19.)
The court concluded that plaintiffs had failed to satisfy the
pleading requirements set forth in Rule 8 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, and the causes of action in the
Complaint were not based on sufficient factual allegations or
on any cogent legal theory. (Id. at 5-6.) The court
also concluded that plaintiffs' fraud claims failed to
satisfy the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, finding plaintiffs'
fraud allegations to be both vague and conclusory.
(Id. at 6-7.)

On
October 13, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with
the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
(Dkt. No. 21 & 22 (Correspondence from Tenth Circuit).)

On
November 28, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit issued an Order dismissing plaintiffs'
appeal for lack of prosecution pursuant to 10th Cir. R. 42.1.
(Dkt. No. 24.)

On
January 18, 2018, plaintiffs filed the instant “Motion
to Set Aside Order Dismissing Subject Case With Prejudice As
Unfounded And Against The Law, ” relying on Rule 60(b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. No. 25.) As
grounds for the motion, plaintiffs appear to argue that the
court erred in concluding that the plaintiffs' complaint
failed to satisfy Rule 8 and Rule 9 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. More specifically, plaintiffs state in their
motion: “The Court repeatedly warned plaintiffs that
they had not stated any valid cause of action. Plaintiffs
repeatedly stated that Rule 12b(6) [sic] did not require that
a valid cause of action be stated, but only facts.”
(Pl's Motion to Set Aside Order Dismissing Case at 2.)

DISCUSSION

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&ldquo;Relief
under Rule 60(b) [of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] is
committed to the sound discretion of the district court and
is warranted only under exceptional circumstances.&rdquo;
Widman v. Keene, Slip Opinion, 2017 WL 1901424, *2
(D. Utah May 8, 2017) (quoting U.S. v. Rice, 594
Fed.Appx. 482, 484 (10th Cir. 2014)). Rule 60(b) permits a
district court to “relieve a party . . . from a final
judgment, order or proceeding” for six specific,
enumerated reasons. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). In the motion now
before the court, plaintiffs do not specify the reason or
reasons upon which they rely. Having reviewed the motion, the
court is unable to identify any allegation or argument that
would fall within the reasons set forth in Rule 60(b)(1)-(5).
Accordingly, the court presumes that the
“catch-all” provision of Rule 60(b)(6),
“any other reason that justifies relief, ” is the
relied upon avenue for relief. Specifically, Rule ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.